"Conservative haters: Same-sex marriage will make straight couples less monogamous "

Conservative haters: Same-sex marriage will make straight couples less monogamous
http://randyreport.blogspot.com/2014/09/conservative-haters-same-sex-marriage.html

-----------------------------------------------
Now that is truly hilarious! If they weren't actually trying to be serious such train of thought would be laughed right out of the room. But then it is the same type of mentality that has surfaced from time to time by some Conservative thinkers who assert that if same-sex marriage was to be allowed then people could start marrying their animals, etc. Of course broad-minded, clear-thinking people know the difference that it takes an adult person to be able to sign a marriage certificate. Enough said on that.

But as to how a same-sex marriage would affect a straight marriage by making it less monogamous, well that type of thinking simply defies description. Think about it. How could a same-sex marriage in another state that allows Gay marriage or even in your own state possibly affect your marriage by making it less monogamous? Can we talk? Oh but let's speak about the fantastic power and ability of Gays and Lesbians to perform such feats! Goodness, but what won't the right's continued silliness come up with next?

 

Quite obviously the very idea of gay marriage is why Newt GIngrich cheated on his first wife, with the woman that would become his second wife.....who he cheated on with his third wife.

And why Rush Limbaugh is on his FOURTH "monogamous" marriage.

 

Teh Gheyz haz majickal powurz. Gheyz kan makes urthkwakes, fluuds, tormatos, fiers, and now kan makes you wifeys in2 teh slutz too!

 

or John McCain... the list goes on....

- - - Updated - - -

 

But the Ditto-heads are especially egregious.

They SERIOUSLY expect to be taken serious when they talk about "defending traditional marriage".....while being fans of a guy on his FOURTH marriage in as many decades to a younger woman (naturally).

 

Because someone else's freedom clearly means that you destroy another persons self control.

And these are the same people that walk around talking about personal accountability and responsibility.

 

Wow. That is why some don't want the word "homophobia" used... it describes that kind of sh__ thinking almost perfectly.

 

What a bunch of baloney, same sex marriage is not going to make me cheat on my wife.

 

The homophobic are just grasping at straws and hoping to create some hysteria.....why?

Because they're losing. In a decade, gay marriage will be de facto (or otherwise) legal in the United States. THEY know it. But they hope to put off the Inevitable with some panic-mongering.....even if it, as you say, a bunch of baloney.

 

Of course it wouldn't! How could it? Did they expect that you would leave your wife each time a gay couple marries and for you to go after a guy instead? I mean who thinks up these farcical, idiotic things? Such pathetic thinking. And what baloney, as you called it! You are so right! People marrying in a same-sex relationship are not going to affect Your marriage or that of anyone else one iota except for the two same-sex couples who married who might just have finally found happiness.

 

The only question is do they really believe their own equine excrement?

 

LOLOL.. Good one.

 

That kind of thinking is asinine!

 

Whelp the original intent of the marriage benefits was as an incentive for couples to procreate and raise productive citizens; it wasn't intended to be an "entitlement" to any 2 people who are "in love".

That's why I'd favor limiting marriage to 2 people who have legal custody of a child - this would be the fairest solution and should keep everyone but the extremists on both sides happy.

 

The 30% of the 5% of married gays are not costing the state squat comparatively. Is the state annulling marriages after the kids are no longer dependents? That is where this marriage- for- procreation idea really loses its social investment as you define it. It keeps John and Olivia Walton married after Jim Bob and Elizabeth have moved off the Mountain and lets Grandpa and Grandma Walton ( Zeb and Esther) stay hitched for 35 years after John went into the army! The government gets no further procreational value from those lovebirds either.

 

This would include adoptees as well; and there'd be a "grandfather clause" allowing people who had a kid to remain married even after the kid is gone.

(This also might help encourage fidelity since a divorced couple couldn't just get re-married immediately after ending a previous marriage).

 

No deal. This marriage thing is not about encouraging fidelity. There is no law requiring fidelity to get those marital benefits. It is about a stable home for dependent minors. It is not a permanent gratuity for literally decades after your stated social benefit ends.

Stop making excuses. Annul those worthless marriage vows for all governmental purposes. If Grandma andGrandpa still want to live together, great. If they want a civil union, we can consider it, but that marriage license and its legal status ends when John Walton turns 18! All you are doing is diluting the real purpose for sentiment! Civil marriage is not until death do the parting, its about when the minors, which the institution is really designed for, do the departing.

 

There is no law that a couple MUST procreate, so your point is refuted and is irrelevant.

 

A blog posted by someone allegedly named "Randy" doesn't merit a thread, but you are serving his purpose well.

Are you Randy? A friend of yours?